🔗 Share this article

Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency sparked by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for resolving the conflict appeared – temporarily – to have been contained. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, the Kremlin made its response: an extensive attack of rocket attacks on Kyiv.

The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction

The sequence of opposing developments captured the grim essence of the current period. By day, political struggles are conducted: hopeful statements are delivered from multiple capitals. Considerable effort is allocated on restraining specific proposals. By night, the Kremlin clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".

After-Dark Attacks

As the offensive developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was exposed. Ukraine is equipped to monitor projectile deployments from across the border, a ability enabled by timely intelligence. From vantage locations, defense planes that had been scrambled to counter approaching cruise missiles roared overhead – sophisticated military planes supplied to Ukraine by European allies.

Shortly after, Kyiv's anti-aircraft weapons thundered: defensive missiles fired to intercept a hostile projectile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by Western nations. Every deployment creates sudden vibrations, causing tremors. The moment of terror quickly becomes resigned acknowledgment: maybe the incoming missile won't strike its target this time, protecting urban areas from devastation and another blackout.

Ongoing Risks

Not long after, a automatic firearm engaged a drone close by, part of a defensive team – probably allied-provided weaponry. Unfortunately, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its destination.

Periodically, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the morning news: seven people killed, damage and infrastructure problems in many homes as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – experiencing conflict. But those full day encapsulated Ukraine's essential dependence on external assistance – a reliance that neighboring countries are demonstrably unable to replace in the near term.

Ineffective Peace Efforts

The comprehensive proposal from American leadership generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and briefly redirected concern from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after prior negotiation attempts and bilateral conferences.

Every new proposal from US leadership adheres to the same pattern: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with allied governments, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This trend will, certainly, endure.

Tactical Assessments

It is convenient to criticize particular leaders of consistently pushing Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a principle understood by experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The American government presumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to relinquish the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.

The issue is that while acknowledging this situation, US leadership does little to discourage Russia, through statements or actions, from believing that the current condition will not evolve additionally in its favour in the months ahead.

Divergent Views

Therefore, the Kremlin is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are nearing depletion. Their reason to sign a deal that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to end hostilities, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains highly assured in the result.

On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still persist, gradually sacrificing people and territory but preventing a total frontline collapse until circumstances change in its favour.

Existing Situation

Factually, there are no real preconditions for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: political desires to broker a ceasefire and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the flag against any proposal Kyiv finds unsuitable, so that their focus does not shift toward internal issues. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after current events, it remains very improbable that this will modify their basic position.

These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.

Assessment and Future

It took a mere seven days to kill the proposed articles of the current initiative. Aggressive and erratic handling of the matter by US administration, opposition by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of diplomats, and finally, latest revelations, all did their job.

While new proposals based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should arrive at a critical understanding: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate specific hesitation to alter the situation, if they maintain solidarity and enhance their military capacity at a much faster pace. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the foreseeable future, primarily depend on sustained allied backing.